COTH, civility & censorship

[mayhew]

It's not censorship when it is someone's private home. This BB is COTH's private home. Their house, their rules. Freedom of the press has nothing to do with it.

[SwampYankee]

I'm not particularly worried about AT's mother. Or Roger Clemens' or Mitt Romney's or President Obama's for that matter. They have the option of not reading the idle chat-posts of people with nothing better to do, same as they can opt out of reading the newspaper or watching the evening news, or reading "Fifty Shades of Grey."

For the record, I've also had my 15 minutes of fame a couple of times and didn't enjoy it much. I know all too well how it feels to have people think they're "entitled to comment." I have even been wrongfully misquoted by the press, things expressly told in confidence as background material, even on tape, being spun and quoted in ways that could frankly have gotten me killed. I'm extremely careful what I say, and about whom, and in full knowledge that these pixels never die.

I was spellbound--in the same sense you would watch hounds breaking up a fox--watching the bloodlust that went on here over the Le Samourai matter, for which I lurked and didn't even join COTH at that point out of sheer revulsion!

The recent discussions here are pretty mild by comparison.

[GoForAGallop]

I don't think you can whine and moan about Amy being a part of the eventing community, and everyone just wanting to know what happened to her, blah blah blah as a justification for the thread, and then post this:

I'm not particularly worried about AT's mother.

[SwampYankee]

I don't think you can whine and moan about Amy being a part of the eventing community, and everyone just wanting to know what happened to her, blah blah blah as a justification for the thread, and then post this:

The cut-and-paste feature allows you to take my words out of their embedded context, which you just did, which is how words get put in one's mouth that in no way resemble the point being made.

Now let's get back to the question at hand here:

DO WE have a duty to be INOFFENSIVE, given that it is impossible to predict what any given reader is capable of being offended BY? I call that "political correctness." What do you call it?

We may even be talking about regional differences in "manners" here; I'll fully own that in greater NYC there are few news items or topics that are off-limits. That includes in barns, bars, and the Yale and Harvard Clubs . . .

[cloudyandcallie]

Oh for God's sake! Just say what you want to say and if the mods do not like it, you'll get censured, if you are lucky, or banned, if you are unlucky.

[Tamara in TN]

DO WE have a duty to be INOFFENSIVE, given that it is impossible to predict what any given reader is capable of being offended BY? I call that "political correctness." What do you call it?
.

good manners

let's say that I want to go on say a, "gay person rant".....after all gay people are in the media all the time....

with your logic, I can say the most hateful things I wish and it should be ok cause, "gosh how should I know that those people would be offended? Everyone else is talking about them"

or should I not, because I am bound by good manners to watch what comes out of my mouth?


Tamara

[danceronice]

It's a message board owned by a private entity with terms to which you agree when you create an account. Your duty is to abide by the rules or not participate. If you feel the moderation is heavy-handed here, then first I have to assume you're new to this mystical thing call the intrawebs, and second that you don't actually understand what the first amendment means. (Hint: The Bill of Rights is a very specific document which VERY specifically is delineating what the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can and cannot restrict. COTH is not the federal government.)

Honestly, it's like the whining and screaming and gnashing of teeth I see by some people on Facebook about how its TOS is INFRINGING ON THEIR RIGHTS OMG HOW DARE THEY when A) they haven't read the TOS and B) they're still using the absolutely free services provided by Facebook. Because it's their RIGHT to have Facebook! Entitlement whores...

[Bluey]

good manners

let's say that I want to go on say a, "gay person rant".....after all gay people are in the media all the time....

with your logic, I can say the most hateful things I wish and it should be ok cause, "gosh how should I know that those people would be offended? Everyone else is talking about them"

or should I not, because I am bound by good manners to watch what comes out of my mouth?


Tamara

That seems to be a bit my problem.
I try to post in a colloquial way and someone is going to get upset by it, so have to again use my stilted ways and then, someone again will take what I say wrong.

Some times, you can't win, even when you try hard not to ruffle feathers ... and never, ever try to joke.

I think that, over time, posters get to know others and if they mean to offend or not.
There are a couple of posters that I really think are generally, as someone said, posting for pot stirring.
Most others are trying to find a sensible way to have their say.

The Moderator has a good ear for what is what and a fine way to act when necessary so few take offense.
Can't beat how things run here, especially if you compare with other web site's forums.

One reason the flavor has changed I think is because the internet has so many more choices today.
Some old posters have gone on to other places like the social media, if that filled their needs better.
Without them, of course the discourse is different, not better or worse, just different.
Most people like the familiar best, is hard to change.

[Renn/aissance]

I don't think pretending to help the mods learn how to moderate Coth more to anyone's particular liking is going to work.

Well said.

[JGHIRETIRE]

I'm with this. Some of the things being said about AT were beyond regular speculation. I have never had a problem with what the mods have closed - they do a good job.

I read through many of the posts on the AT thread on the eventing forum today, and I have to admit thinking that if I were her parents I would have asked the Chronicle to shut it down or withdraw the thread. Sometimes, I think some threads sometimes go beyond what should have been their expiration dates. Sometimes it's for the best that they do, and sometimes it serves no good purpose to anyone to let them continue, and that's the stage I think the AT thread was at. It would not surprise me if a family member simply and civilly requested the magazine to end the speculation. Had I been a mod, I would have complied. Some of the responses in that thread were in poor taste, and for that reason I refused to post on it. Just an opinion.

[katarine]

Never even held a Chronicle magazine in my hands.

Carrying some number of infractions from over the years. Only one is 'wrong': Mod 3 walked into a hornet's nest s/he didn't understand. I think Mod 1 knows the real deal. I don't sweat it. Any other infraction, I earned it. LOL

The moderation ladled out here is, by and large, good, thoughtful, and reasonable. I've been on boards fueled by ego and powertrips. That does not happen anymore, here. After Erin self imploded, things calmed down. For better or for worse.

People are vile when they want to be. They are unreasonable when they want to be. But sometimes, you run across people who just don't have a clue about ''feel". Whether the thread is about their horse running over working students, or about censorship they don't like...you realize they don't feel the undercurrent that is feel, that is soul, that is the connecting fiber and twang and tenor of life and spark.

I feel bad for people who lack feel. Life has to be so black and white and up and down and nothing anywhere just soft and lively and full of potential and energy. You can't define it, but if you don't have it, you can't get it.

[happymom]

Simply put, it makes me sad how nasty our "civilization" has become.

[Moderator 1]

While the threads about Amy Tryon's cause of death were of course horse-related in that she was a very prominent member of the eventing community, the discussion that ensued focused primarily on discussing various aspects of prescription drug use/abuse...not horses.

We didn't close the threads because people disagreed with each other. Folks disagree all the time on the site, often quite vehemently, and that's generally fine, but when a thread is fairly contentious AND the discussion isn't really horse-related AND is dealing with someone's personal life (albeit a prominent person), then it's not a wise choice for us to expend our very limited resources in keeping it going.

We left the thread open a significant amount of time after we started receiving alerts about it, as it's understandable that people would want to talk about it, which they did...for 16 pages.

As noted by others, First Amendment references don't really apply here. We try to give users as much freedom to discuss and share their thoughts and opinions as we can, but y'all agree to our Terms of Service when you create an account, so, no, you don't get to say whatever you want here.

If anyone would like to provide feedback re: this or any other moderation action, feel free to send me a PM or email.

Thanks,
Mod 1